Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 4

Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God

Why have links to this website been deleted repeatedly? Sfacets removed it again today, saying "rmv website - not on SY". Clearly it concerns Sahaja Yoga, which is mentioned 38 times on the home page alone.

• Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God

Please explain in more detail how this website has no relevance to this article. -Will Beback · † · 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The group behind the website do not consider themselves Sahaja Yogis, although they practice techniques taught by SY. Sfacets 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They also comment extensively about SY, therefore it's relevant. -Will Beback · † · 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Sfacets 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We can start with the 38 mentions on the home page, which I already mentioned. -Will Beback · † · 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If this site is to be included then it should be under a heading called something like 'alternative views' since although the link does mention Sahaja Yoga 38 times it also plainly tells the reader that the author no longer considers themselves to be part of Sahaja Yoga and in fact acknowledges that some of his views are unaccepted by the Sahaja Yoga community. As this wiki page is about Sahaja Yoga and the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization that has been created by Shri Mataji then it would be misleading to have the link under an ambiguous heading.--Willia 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to calling it an "alternative view". -Will Beback · † · 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the Criticism-Complaints section. If I read some of it correctly, they are experts on SY's declared practices, and complaining that SY is too timid and moderate to declare more divinity — a complaint from the hierarchist right. It would fit well with RMHP's documentation of complaints from the anti-hierarchist left — that there is already too much declaration of divinity. Assembled sequentially, these two opposing complaints make SY look like the moderate center of practice. As I understand it, taking the middle path is considered a virtue in much of India. Milo 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Milo in saying that it belongs in the criticism-complaints section. I wouldnt agree that the author of the site is an expert but that is another matter altogether. If moved to the criticism-complaints section it would make it evident to a reader that this view exists but that it is not an accepted view of the majority of individuals who practice Sahaj Yoga. --Willia 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but the group behind www.adishakti.org appears to be a schism, branch, or rival of Sahaja Yoga. If so, schisms, branches and rivals typically know with ultimate expertise how they differ from each other, since otherwise they would have less reason to exist. Milo 09:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good assessment. -Will Beback · † · 09:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They do not describe themselves as such... Sfacets 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not unusual among religious or philosophical rivals, due to the frequent 'we're the one true' and the 'who's a heretic' positions by which some converts are persuaded. I can't recall the last time I read that Catholics and Protestants were "rivals" (in religion), "schism" is term best known by the educated, and "branch" is almost exclusively an academic term (except for "Branch Davidians"). Therefore, both the common knowledge and academic analysis is constructional: rivals are identified by having an in-common focus of devotion, but with more or less differing practices of devotion. Intense complaints, as in this case, make for an easy common knowledge rivalry assessment.

For example, the person in the street commonly knows that Jesus Christ is the in-common focus of both Catholic and Protestant devotions, and that the intensely disputed devotional practice of naming a Pope is their most important differentiation. Milo 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But can you really call this a schism or branch, when we are unaware of the number of believers in this philosophy? Surely these qualifiers may only be used when applied to a movement, rather than an isolated theory? The definition of 'schism' for instance, is given as "a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief." (source Oxford dictionary) while here what is in question is both the number of adherents to the divergent philosophy as well as the degree of opposition. Sfacets 18:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"can you really call this a schism or branch" I didn't; rather, I called them rivals. Milo 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps I misunderstand, but the group behind www.adishakti.org appears to be a schism, branch, or rival of Sahaja Yoga." - also in what capacity would you say they are rivals? Sfacets 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"in what capacity would you say they are rivals?" Please refer to my statement posted 18:08, 16 Dec above. Milo 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't know how many people practice SY, so I don't see why we should be picky about how many followers this related group has. What is the most appropriate label for this group, or do we even need to label them? -Will Beback · † · 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Its all semantics really. Going back to the point that I made the other day; the author of the link in question makes it pretty obvious that he and his 3 children are no longer part of Sahaja Yoga or the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organisation and since this organisation is what the wiki entry is telling people about then it makes sense to me that the link should be mentioned but under a 'criticism-complains' or 'alternate views' section. To me it really makes no difference if it is a schism, breakaway group, faction, rival or whatever. --Willia 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple use of source in criticism section

Why is the same source being used three separate times, when it can just be used once? Sfacets 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because each assertion should be sourced. Otherwise they might be challenged later and deleted. -Will Beback · † · 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, if the whole section exists in the source, then no, it wouldn't be. Apparently (according to the source) all three criticisms exist on the same pages. Sfacets 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that you believe all the material in that section is properly source? -Will Beback · † · 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is my experience that contentious material gets deleted if not very meticulously and accurately sourced. It is also my experienc that if only one reference is used for a whole contentious paragraph then contributors start writing {{fact}} after every sentence or sometimes even after certain words and then this material gets removed because it is not clear that the reference applies for the whole parapraph and not for only the last sentence. Andries 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Consense with Will and Andries on sourcing each contentious assertion. For formatting elegance, it would be nice to point several ref numbers to the same reference, but is that technically possible? Milo 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see list of charismatic leaders for an example. Andries 06:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that the source applies to the entire paragraph. Placing the source after every sentence is overkill, and adds multiple entries to the (already long) sources section. Sfacets 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"adds multiple entries" Not if using the technical method at list of charismatic leaders ("^ 4. a b c d Oakes, Len:...")

Milo 09:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chakras

The new table on chakras appears to be mostly redundant to the article on Chakra. Furthermore it has no sources. If there are differences between the SY view of the chakras and the conventional yogic views then we should highlight them, with sources. Simply repeating standard chakra descriptions doesn't help the article or the project. -Will Beback · † · 23:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were to look carefully, you would note a large number of differences between the traditional chart and the one followed by SY. I am planning a descriptive section to accompany the chart.Sfacets

The table doesn't mention those differences. Furthermore there are no sources listed so it isn't verifiable. -Will Beback · † · 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should it mention the differences? Reference added. Sfacets 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference, http://www.sahajvidya.org/SahajVidya/0_Files_SahajVidya/C/Chakras_sec_val2.pdf, is on a non-public website. There's no indication of the author. May we either have the key to access the website ("The 'Key' may be obtained from any Sahaja Yogi"), or can we have a more verifiable article for a source? Also, it isn't clear which parts of the chakra table it is being used to support. -Will Beback · † · 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pdf file is not password protected. It references information found in the table. Sfacets 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who compiled the information, and when? What parts of the table are being referenced by it? -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The source is a compilation of synthesized sentences, each of which are cross referenced to a talk by Nirmala Srivastava. The author can therefore be considered Nirmala Srivasava herself. Each chakra is mentioned in the source. I am currently looking for the article where I had originaly found the information. Sfacets 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When was it compiled? The file inforamtion has been supressed in Acrobat. -Will Beback · † · 06:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Sfacets 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Other sources have been rejected because their date of publication was unknown. -Will Beback · † · 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The question of date is irrelevant here, since this is not a composition, merely a collection of quotes. Sfacets 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the question of date relevant to other articles? Why are those articles out of date while these quotes aren't? -Will Beback · † · 17:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because each quote is referenced to a dated speech. Sfacets 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the speeches aren't dated. I do see a date of 6 May 2003 at the bottom of the file. However that may be past older than the date allowed for other sources. I'm worried about this compilation because of all the ellipses. It appears to have been heavily edited. I'm sure we can find a better source. Several SY website have pages on chakras. Let's use one of those instead. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you compare the description of qualities between the Hindu belief associated chakra article and the Sahaj descriptions you will find that there are differences. These may seem subtle but are very important to the correct understanding of Sahaja Yoga principles. For example in the article about chakras the mooladhara or muladhara is described as relating to instinct, security, survival and also to basic human potentiality whereas within Sahaj principles the mooladhara represents the seat of Innocence, Purity, Wisdom, Auspiciousness, Magnetism, Spontaneity (Sahaj), Power to raise the Kundalini. There is a very specific difference between these sets of qualities and to simply direct a reader to the chakra article would lead them to assume that Sahaja Yoga is essentially a branch of Hinduism and that is definately not the case. With regards to sources frankly I think that what applies to the goose should apply to the gander as well, have you queried source information from the people/person who inputted the chakra article as there appears to be none mentioned. Shri Mataji has laid out this knowledge in a number of talks over the years, I presume that these could not be used as sources? --Willia 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The chakras are a concept held by perhaps a thousand million Hindus and Yogis. Individual sects and gurus have their own variations. Rather than covering the whole topic of chakras, already covered in an article of their own (plus articles on the individual chakras), it'd be simpler to cover thwhat makes the SY chakras distinct. Are the colors and petals different? Regardig sourcing, any source that can be verified by other editors and that meets our standards for reliable sources would be sufficient. A talk that an editor heard would not be verifiable. A talk that was transcribed and published would be. Some editors of this article have held sources to very high standards, standards which should be applied evenly. -Will Beback · † · 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will about focusing the differences. Since the actress Shirley Maclaine popularized chakra theory, it's no longer a novelty that inspires close reading. Now readers who are somewhat familiar are likely to skip over SY's version, thinking, seen one chakras explanation, seen them all.

The use of differential or difference data is a widely-used form of industrial knowledge management. Its use saves space, access and learning time, reduces application errors, and is easier for students to memorize. If it is important for SY to distinguish its chakra theory from others, this is the best way to do it. Milo 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, just focuus on the differences Sahaja claims with other chakra systems, if it is really that important. Interesting that you say Sahaja is not a branch of hinduism here yet are so concerned elsewhere about insisting there is a "long lineage". Editing from a COI, faith based position is simply tangling you up in knots. --Dseer 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why only the differences should be addressed, when it would be so much easier just to present the system of chakras as followed by SY - there are many differences, this table doesn't just duplicate the model found on the chakra article, but apports a very different view on the chakra system. The paragraph I intend on writing explaining the whole thing (as soon as I can find the time) will explain both the similarities and differences between the clasical system and the model followed by SY.

Dseer, could I ask you to perhaps focus on the discussion at hand instead of going off on tangents and repeating what you have already said various times accross various articles? Sfacets 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unorthodox Scientific, Medical and Health Claims

Links (7) through (20) are being cited as evidence for Unorthodox, Scientific, Medical and Health Claims for Sahaja Yoga in an article about an NRM. The primary subject of the article is the NRM. This is not an article on state of the art scientific, medical and health thinking. Wikipedia is not for advocating fringe claims medical benefits associated with the practices of a given NRM like Sahaja over others like Reiki, TM, etc. The guidance for sources on scientific matter begins here: [[1]] and ends here: [[2]].

The statement "Water is spiritually vibrated to increase its benefical qualities and to purify it.[7]" is only a religious belief. If it is a significant belief, there is no need to link to that specific section of the Sahaja website, simply list it as a key belief since the general website lists the beliefs in great detail. Something like "Sahaja Yogis believe that water can be spiritually vibrated for benefit and purification", period.

The very title "Sahaja Yoga in medicine" implies scientifically validated medical claims are being listed. None of the medical statements made has been widely accepted as "proven" in mainstream medical thinking. Even the second statement caveats by saying "some" of these claims have been scientifically confirmed. The section needs to be retitled. Something like "Claimed Health Benefits"

These statements below are exceptional claims and the "evidence" provided is insufficient under Wikipedia guidelines to use of terms like proven, scientifically confirmed, etc. There is no supporting, mainstream peer reviewed raw data to confirm these assertions or their medical significance, and for example, the other "generic" meditations are not defined, Simply list the medical claims that Sahaj Yoga makes as beliefs and claims made by the NRM and reference the one site that lists these cites. The extraordinary claims of a hospital run by the group explaining "miraculous" cures is a highly dubious source. The health claims of the so-called "liver diet" have not been supported by mainstream nutritionists, the benefits of fruits and vegetables and yoghurt are common knowledge, too much ginger can have an adverse effect, and the claim that "white cane sugar and white rice" are cooling is not only unscientfic but ignores the common assessmetn that refined sugar and rice are less healthy than less processed sweets and and brown rice. These are simply beliefs, not science.

Thus the following needs to severely edited, and the whole section can be shortened to simply list the Sahaja beliefs without all the frills:

Sahaja Yoga meditation has proven effective in addressing various medical ailments, including asthma[8][9], epilepsy[10], and ADHD[11]. Some of these claims have been scientifically confirmed. For example, some case studies have shown that test subjects who were practising Sahaja Yoga meditation had "significant improvement in VCS (Visual Contrast Sensitivity)", and that meditation appeared to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients.[12] Other studies showed that Sahaja Yoga meditation results in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures [13] According to the Medical Observer Weekly, Sahaja Yoga was found to be more effective than other generic forms of meditation in the reduction of stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.[14] Short-term effects on asthma have also been noticed, by both objective and subjective measures.[9]

Sahaja Yoga claims that it has cured patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc."[15][16] SY's commentary on a study by Mishra [RK], et al., 1993, suggests that an observed increase in beta-endorphins for meditating males could explain "so-called miraculous cures"[17]. Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects. [18]

The organization runs an international hospital in Mumbai, India, the Sahaja Yoga International Health and Research Centre, which uses Sahaja Yoga methods. This hospital claims to have been successful in curing incurable diseases such as (refractory) high blood pressure, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis.[14][19]

Shri Mataji has developed a liver diet to promote better health. White cane sugar, white rice, yoghurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables promote the "cooling" of the liver. Alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess. [20]

Something like this would work fine (links would still need to be resolved, but recommend this general one takes care of most of the claims (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/sahajayoga/references):

Claimed Health Benefits

Sahaja Yoga meditation claims to be beneficial for various ailments, including asthma, epilepsy, and ADHD, and in superior reduction of stress, anxiety, and depression. Sahaja Yoga also claims that it has cured patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc." [19]

The organization runs an international hospital in Mumbai, India, the Sahaja Yoga International Health and Research Centre, which uses Sahaja Yoga methods. This hospital claims to have been successful in curing incurable diseases such as (refractory) high blood pressure, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis. [19]

Shri Mataji developed a liver diet claimed to promote better health. She claims white cane sugar, white rice, yoghurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables promote the "cooling" of the liver, while alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess. [20] --Dseer 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"The extraordinary claims of a hospital run by the group explaining "miraculous" cures is a highly dubious source." It's valid when it's about themselves. The medical claims section doesn't look all that bad to me, it's been toned down a lot, and it's referenced, so why not let them have their say? What makes more sense is to write doubts into the Criticisms section if you feel it to be urgent.
"The health claims of the so-called "liver diet" have not been supported by mainstream nutritionists, ..., too much ginger can have an adverse effect, and the claim that "white cane sugar and white rice" are cooling is not only unscientific but ignores the common assessment that refined sugar and rice are less healthy than less processed sweets and brown rice. These are simply beliefs, not science." Another viewpoint is needed here. Recall that yogas promote balances, and that's what this article needs, too. I argued and wrote science previously, because SY was claiming scientific proof about beta-endorphins. But science isn't the only rational form of natural philosophy. Asian cooking and medicine is based on experiential herbalism, which in practice is as useful as medical and nutritional science. The temperaments of substances (heating and cooling) have been assessed for thousands of years. My edited-in concern (which Sfacets simply deleted rather than researching it) is that at least one "liver diet" item departs from the classic temperaments list. Ginger is probably known as a heating herb to most Asian housewives, and it doesn't seem to make sense if claimed to cool the liver, but I can't be certain. I have to wonder if that isn't a video to print transcription error? Anyway, I think the ginger item should simply be footnoted as not in accord with classic Unani Tibb/Arab/Greek herbal temperaments, but someone needs to go find the temperaments reference list here on WP. I too think it ill-advised to feed B-vitamin-free white rice to a damaged liver that normally stores B-vitamins, but again a footnote is the way to handle both the classic macrobiotic and scientific dissents. Btw, watch out for herbal canards like the "too much ginger" thing. How could someone eat too much ginger? They will stop about the same time as the "adverse effect" begins. hehe Milo 10:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree western science is incomplete. I'm all for working on this some more. I do not want to censor the essential claims so much as make it clearer they are not scientifically or medically accepted statements and as you say inconsistent with other traditional sources. That can be done by reworking the language. --Dseer 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

PS--I am totally serious about contraindications for the excess use of ginger (I use it myself, so I am familar with the subject). Medical claims about any substances where there are known contraindications should have the contraindications referenced with the claims to make sure somebody doesn't self-prescribe in ignorance based on what they read here. One example of the cautions associated with excess ginger, taken from: [3]

GINGER (Zingiber officinale) +++ OTC

ACT: Antiemetic; Antiinflammatory; Carminative; Spasmolytic

IND: Arthritis; Cramps; Dizziness; Indigestion; Morning & Motion Sickness; Nausea

POS: 3-10 g fresh ginger; or 2-4 g dry ginger/day; three 550 mg capsules 3 x day (NH); one 480mg STX 2x/day

SEC: Perhaps erring on the side of caution, Reichert cautions that ginger may raise the bloodpressure, may amplify blood-thinning drug's activities, and might be counter indicated in pregnancy. The Lawrence Review says overdoses may cause cardiac arrhythmias and CNS-depression. Due to ginger's strong antiaggregant activity, "experts recommend it not be used by people with blood-clotting disorders. Many ... chemotherapy patients experience periods when their blood platelet counts drop dramatically....Doctors will warn patients to avoid aspirin when their platelet counts are low ... We feel that patients should also avoid ginger when their platelet count drops, while continuing use of ginger for patients with normal platelet counts." (Block, 1996) Less conservatively, Commission E reports rhizome should not be used for vomiting in pregnancy.

That is what I mean by critical, Wikipedia does not want to become a vehicle for uncaveated medical claims where there are known risks. --Dseer 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the exactly the problem. In many cases the supposed risks are not known for sure, and may not exist at all. If you actually chase down these tales of herbal worry, many of them turn out to be based on no evidence or a false analogy to drugs. Catnip on the Chicago ER list of poisonous plants is one of my favorites. Yes, when children eat it they will reverse-lunch it, but that's it. "Don't do that."
You are also confusing supplement phytotherapy with diet therapy. A diet of strong ginger curry is not eaten in capsules. There has been no SY mention of anything but food.
You don't need to make it clearer that SY's statements are not scientifically or medically accepted, unless they clearly make medical claims (I think SY deliberately makes this difficult to decide). Dietary and herbal claims are not medical claims; they are "health" claims (it's a legal word game that matters). Medicine cannot claim dominion over 3-4,000 years old health traditions. But definitely flag inconsistency with other traditional sources.
Alternative nutritionists and experiential herbalists have very strong opinions on this subject. What you are quoting and concerned about, is a 65-year old pharma campaign of exaggerated half truths to discredit and discourage use of herbs and nutritional supplements. The goal is to force patients to buy expensive patent synthetic drugs, to their short term benefit, but their long-term decline. Don't believe anything Commission E (or Varo Tyler who promoted it), wrote about herbs until you check it with an experiential herbalist source. All the inputs to Commission E were secret, and controlled by the German pharma industry. The late Tyler was a pharmacist who spent his life trying get herbal remedies controlled as drugs, which of course would suppress them since patients would be told 'we now have drugs that are better' (and literally bankrupting expensive).
Your well-meaning but doubtful source, Prof. Jim Duke is not an experiential herbalist; he's an ethnobotanist. He is providing education for doctors who are taught to consider herbs to be nuisances that can or "might" interfere with pharma therapy. What is Dr.? Reichert's actual experience with ginger and blood pressure? We don't know. What does the Lawrence Review consider to be a ginger "overdose"? We don't know. Why compare ginger to aspirin? Ginger isn't a drug. And no, Tyler was wrong; ginger root also isn't "like" a drug, for reasons that are hard to explain to young MDs trained with med school pharma assumptions. (In a nutshell, synthetic drugs block, natural nutrients enhance metabolic functions, and whole herbs may do a mix of both.)
Btw, one hears about the blood thinner issue all the time. Anyone needing to take blood thinners is to be suspected of vitamin E deficiency/dependency. Under their doctor's watch, they should gradually substitute natural d-alpha with equal d-gamma until the need for a chemical blood thinner is minimized. Then if there is any substance to Reichert's report, maybe try to add ginger to get off the chemical entirely.
I too am a daily eater of dietary ginger, though in teaspoon to a pot quantities. I've occasionally eaten gram or so servings in capsules, and not noticed any effect either way. However I'm a big proponent of fresh ginger root and cinnamon bark tea for abdominal aches and cramps (which I formulated using a few drops of cinnamon essential oil. To my amazement that formulation raised quite a dust storm in my herbal discussion group. I had unknowingly crossed over a guild line, as well as bent a rule to never ingest essential oil. The group's master herbalist eventually admitted that it was a reasonable formulation.)
Dry ginger is hotter than fresh ginger. They are almost like two different herbs. Does the original SY PDF make it clear which one to use? Milo 06:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

I doubt there is a definitive assesment on ginger, even amoung herbalists. Thus my concerns. I'm not asking for anything more than an indication that unsubstantiated dietary and medical claims about the health of the liver are being made. Regarding the Liver diet, it says about ginger: "Ginger in almost any form is good for the liver. In particular...take some in the morning in a spoon mixed with sugar, followed by a glass of water. Crystalized ginger is also very good...this mixture should not be taken in hot climates or hot times of the year..." That is far more specific than just saying most people benefit from taking ginger.

How about this then? I'm simply streamlining the statements and adding appropriate caveats.

Water is allegedly spiritually vibrated to increase its benefical qualities and to purify it.[7]

Sahaja Yoga and Health

Sahaja Yoga meditation claims to be beneficial for various ailments, including asthma, epilepsy, and ADHD, and in superior reduction of stress, anxiety, and depression. Sahaja Yoga also claims that it has cured patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc." [19] SY's commentary on a study by Mishra [RK], et al., 1993, suggests that an observed increase in beta-endorphins for meditating males could explain "so-called miraculous cures"[17]. Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects. Sahaja Yoga meditation claims to result in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures [13]. And, Sahaja Yoga is claimed to be more effective than other, unspecified "generic" forms of meditation in the reduction of stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.[14]. Short-term effects on asthma are also claimed. None of these claims have been generally accepted by mainstream medical and scientific authorities.

The organization runs an international hospital in Mumbai, India, the Sahaja Yoga International Health and Research Centre, which uses Sahaja Yoga methods. This hospital claims to have been successful in curing incurable diseases such as (refractory) high blood pressure, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis.[14][19]. These claims have not been generally accepted by mainstream medical and scientific authorities.

Shri Nirmala Srivastava has developed a liver diet to promote better health and improved meditation. White cane sugar, white rice, yoghurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables are recommended to promote the "cooling" of the liver. Alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess. [20] These dietary claims have not been generally accepted by msinstream medical and scientfic authorities.

--72.199.185.19 06:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Sahaja Yoga and Health

Sahaja Yoga has been shown during trials to be beneficial against various ailments, including asthma[8][9], epilepsy[10], and ADHD[11]. and in superior reduction of stress, anxiety, and depression. Sahaja Yoga also claims that it has cured patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc." [19] SY's commentary on a study by Mishra [RK], et al., 1993, suggests that an observed increase in beta-endorphins for meditating males could explain "so-called miraculous cures"[17] observed in cancer patients. Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects. Sahaja Yoga meditation claims to result in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures [13]. Sahaja Yoga is reported to be more effective than other, unspecified "generic" forms of meditation in the reduction of stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.[14]<!according to source this was an independantly funded RCT-->. Short-term effects on asthma are also claimed. None of these claims have been generally accepted by mainstream medical and scientific authorities.

The organization runs an international hospital in Mumbai, India, the Sahaja Yoga International Health and Research Centre, which uses Sahaja Yoga methods. This hospital claims to have been successful in curing incurable diseases such as (refractory) high blood pressure, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis.[14][19]. These claims have not been generally accepted by mainstream medical and scientific authorities.

Shri Nirmala Srivastava has developed a liver diet to promote better health and improved meditation. White cane sugar, white rice, yoghurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables are recommended to promote the "cooling" of the liver. Alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess. [20]

I'm not sure why you write "These dietary claims have not been generally accepted by msinstream medical and scientfic authorities", at least at the end of the sentence, implying that the entire section was not accepted... Sfacets 06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems improved and satisfactory. I'd add the word "said" to the the paragraph on the liver diet, that is, "...developed a liver diet said to promote better health...", etc. Maybe add "healh claims for the liver diet have not been generally accepted by mainstream medical and scientfic authorities" to make clear it is the diet that is being talked about. --Dseer 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems with this.

• First, the phrase, "in cancer patients" is one that I previously objected to in above talk section Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Cancer - misleading attributions. (See Milo 09:29, 27 Nov 2006.) It is an error of science reporting to allow a non-scientifically-trained reader to conflate in-vitro cancer cell research with in-vivo cancer clinical research. However, the worse problem is that this statement is not about SY, for which the cited SY-UK/LET web page is authoritative, but is presumably paraphrasing a paper by Prof. (RK) Mishra, for which we can find only an abstract (no. 257), and no publication info. SY-UK/LET is not a reliable source for non-SY info, so the statement can't be verified. The compromise I wrote was to quote the "so-called 'miraculous cures'" phrase, but cut the red-flag cancer word.

• Second, the "health claims for the liver diet have not been generally accepted by mainstream medical and scientific authorities" strikes me as having a false authority problem. "Mainstream medical and scientific authorities" are essentially irrelevant to what Shri Nirmala Srivastava thinks is healthy eating for one's liver as stated. Just about anyone can make a health claim about a food diet, though I've seen some of them get criticized by nutritionists (not doctors) on TV. There is also no need to mention "scientific authorities", when "medical authorities" will do. It's common knowledge that medical authorities are opposed to almost any alternative medical claim, while the acceptance or rejection by "scientific authorities" is harder or impossible to prove. But as I previously pointed out, medical authorities only have dominion over "medical" claims not "health" claims. If the statement goes beyond that and specifically mentions liver cures, then that's a medical claim for which the medical authorities disclaimer sentence seems reasonable. What does make sense for the liver diet is a disclaimer like, 'Srivastava's liver diet is different in certain details from traditional Unani recommendations for the health use of cooking spices and herbs.' Milo 07:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, would "in certain trials" or similar be better? I disagree with leaving "so-called miraculous cures" and cutting out the reference to cancer, since in the source - either we remove the sentence altogether or we include the whole thing. the sentence reads "so-called 'miraculous cures' in cancer patients" and doesn't apply to any other diseases but cancer.

I am going to have a look around for a reliable source for this, if possible more than the one.

To your second point, I agree, except for your reference to Unani, which is too specific a genre to place the liver diet. It would be better if anything, to use something more 'vague' such as:

Srivastava's liver diet is different in certain details from traditional recommendations for the health use of cooking spices and herbs.'

This however would need to be backed by a source. To be frank I don't see why it should be compared with any specific regime or health system.

Sfacets 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• "in certain trials" doesn't inform the reader of the seriousness of the scientific issue, that hopeful test tube (in-vitro) cell research is frequently disappointing when repeated in-vivo. If whole lab animals (in-vivo) could be cured of cancer by injecting them with beta-endorphin, we'd probably have heard more about it by now. Beta-endorphin may be just one of many ingredients or practices required for a successful anti-cancer cocktail or lifestyle.

If you want the entire sentence to include the red-flag cancer word, IMHO, (1) you must find a reliable source, as you mentioned, and (2) the disappointments of in-vitro cell research must be disclaimed. This can be briefly explained in a footnote comment at reference 17 "Alterations.... Such as, 'The reader is cautioned that promising test tube cell research as referred to, frequently cannot be duplicated in live lab animals or humans.'

To find a reliable source for the research presumably cited by (RK) Mishra, you could write to Prof. Mishra and ask him to post his paper on his university web site with its original publication details. If he won't/can't agree to that, at least ask him to send you his list of references, which you can look up at PubMed to cite abstracts.

• "This however would need to be backed by a source. To be frank I don't see why it should be compared with any specific regime or health system." You can't have it both ways. If it's to be sourced, it requires a big-three traditional herbal health system with which to compare: Unani, Ayurveda, or TCM Chinese. I think all three systems agree that ginger is heating in one degree or another, but none of them are yet entered into Wikipedia. This is yet a new encyclopedia.

I can cite a source list for Unani herbal temperaments: Traditional Healer's Handbook by Hakim Chishti, N.D., Healing Arts Press, 1991. Citing an Ayurveda herbal temperaments list would be better for people raised in India, but I don't have that cite. If found, it can be substituted later.

The point of what may seem like a small matter to non-herbalists or family herbalists who 'use this herb for that ail', is that the correct use of herb temperaments is the heart of traditional herbal healing. My TCM textbook emphasizes getting herb temperaments correctly complemented to the temperament imbalance the first time. The temperaments (for example, "hot and dry in the third degree"), are attributed to Galen's "Doctrine of Contraries"[4], which are today incorporated into Unani. For those interested, here is an explanation of Culpeper's thermal herbal temperaments based on Galen[5]. Milo 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify again the point I'm trying to make, it seems to be being lost. This is really an article about a NRM, not alternative medicine. You could make a very good article about the NRM and its practices without making any claims about health, medicine or science, but the authors have chosen to do so in the belief that this is emperical evidence supporting the NRMs claims. We should give the NRM some latitude in presenting their case the way they want, so I'm not proposing deleting all that. But, we can't presume the reader reading about the NRM is knowlegeable about alternative medical approaches, and an encylopedia should not be used as a vehicle for making uncaveated, non-accepted scientific, medical and dietary claims. I am not saying science has all the answers, and I am not opposed to alternative medical/nutritional healh approaches, because I use them myself.

In this article, Sahaja Yoga makes religious claims, and scientific/medical claims. The religious claims simply must be presented in an NPOV, with appropriate critical views.

The scientific and medical claims are clearly not mainstream, and have a higher standard for reliability; the one I am using is an encyclopedic one, which Wikipedia establishes here for medical and scienfic sources:[[6]]]. Here we have both a SY practice making claims of improved health, including "miraculous cures", cures of "incurable" ailments, etc, and we have a unique, SY dietary approach that is specifically claimed to benefit the health of the liver correcting a condition not recognized by orthodox medical science and an alternative method that does not even conform to the more accepted alternative systems like TCM, etc. This being an english article, we can look at the regulatory requirements in the US and UK for such dietary claims. In the US, those advertising such health claims not recognized by the FDA have to caveat them (even if in small print) by saying that the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA [7]. In the UK, there are even stricter restrictions of medical claims related to foods, to wit: [8]. Why should Wikipedia do less? All I am saying is that this is an encyclopedia, so if an encyclopedia article includes such unscientificially established claims, they should be properly caveated as a non-mainstream minority. The claims might be true, but they are not recognized yet, for example, we now have evidence to support lots of what natural foods folks have said about foods for years. Stating them requires the caveat. As Wikipedia states: "Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus"...Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy...". One can wordsmith how that is said, including critical points fromo non-Sahaja alternative medical "schools", but something needs to be said. It's not just an attack upon alternative medicine, and should not be interpreted that way. I am simply dealing with the claims Sajaja Yoga is making, that is all. --Dseer 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see there are no guidelines or policies that enforce this. Stipulating that the claims are a minority and not supported by mainstream 'authorities' would be simple Original Research, unless you could find a reliable comparison study between trials conducted using SY methods and trials using more mainstream ones.

Simply using "claims" for example, would be more than enough to convey that it is not a generally accepted approach. Sfacets 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the enforcement here comes from the collective results of editors applying all guidelines to reach NPOV. If the proposal was to create a separate article devoted solely to SY's unique medical and health claims, clearly lacking peer review required for such claims to be considered accepted, and not widely accepted outside of SY circles even among well established alternative traditions like TCM, it would most likely be deleted on reliability grounds since Wikipedia specifically does not want to become the vehicle for giving undue credibility on scientific matters to such claims. Here SY wants to emphasize claimed medical and healing benefits assocated with their practices, which makes the basic assertion of the claims acceptable provided alternative views are referenced. In the interest of coming to a consensus, I would be satisfied with a simple statement associated with them that these claims are not widely accepted. --Dseer 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Wikipedia allows any claim to be published, even if the sources are one's of the organisation in question. From Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources:

"The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source."

But that isn't quite what I was saying. You can't just make any old claim, the editors collectively have to make assesments of sourcing, relevance and notability relative to the article subject. Yes, I am familiar with that portion, there is also other relevant guidance, and it all has to be balanced. Wikipedia guidelines allow for some subtle differences on making claims and how they are treated depending on the basic subject. I am not looking for pretexes to eliminate all Sahaja claims, merely put them in the proper perspective relative to the subject. Even if they were as extreme as the rattlesnake cult that believes they are immune from bites, or that they can raise the dead, that is noteworthy as a religious belief and should be mentioned, but it should be properly caveated since there are other, mainstream views and the burden has not been met. What I am saying is that significant claims/beliefs associated with a religion are noteworthy because of the religious association, including these medical claims, whereas a stand alone article on unique, Sahaja only medical beliefs would not be noteworthy enough to stand on its own as a medical/scientific article because that is a different subject. WP:Fringe "The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." There is too much to mention completely here, but guidance like other sections of WP:RS, are applicable too, for instance, the portion on exceptional claims, particularly this statement: "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community"; signficant portions of WP:Fringe; WP:SCI, and WP:NPOV, including psuedoscience [[9]]. My point is that SY, like TM and many other NRMs, wants to present the impression their ideas relating to medical science are more widely accepted than they are, and mixes claims like curing "incurable" ailmeents with claims of a more relaxed state which probably has empirical support, some statement is needed to preserve NPOV.

A simple "Studies conducted by SY" or "according to SY" will be sufficient, undoing the need for any statement - which would show bias towards mainstream practices while dismissing SY claims. What would you propose for a statement? If a statement were to be used, it would need a source rebuting SY's claims, or it would be OR. Sfacets 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is another case where all relevant, not just selective guidance, has to be considered. As WP says: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." The issue is not to preclude an NRM from making claims, even scientific ones, based on religious beliefs but NPOV means presenting views on those claims in context, and yes there is a Wikipedia bias towards mainstream, not only between science and alternative claims, but where those claims stand within the alternative community. It is not OR to state that these claims are not widely accepted, the absence of scientific support is sufficient, and it is not OR that SY claims are is neither mainstream science or mainstream alternative medicine, and you admit they are unique, which concedes the point. All I am saying is that SY or any other NRM can make assertions but critical views which are more mainstream deserve mention, not mere implication by absence. I think my proposal to simply state "these claims are not widely accepted" is more than fair to SY.

As an aside, that is similar to the problem I have with the chakra section, when we get around to it. SY has made some significant, unique assertions about the functions of chakras that conflict with long standing traditions and the mainstream views of those who actually work with chakras. You can assert and emphasize the SY system here because it is an SY article but if you do, there needs to be a focus on the areas where this conflict exits and the fact this is a minority view (even within the minority academic view of those who accept that chakras exist) should be addressed. --Dseer 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"This is really an article about a NRM, not alternative medicine." You should be aware that Sahaja Yoga has, not by accident IMHO, defined itself in ways that resist some of the statements you've made. For example, they deny having religious beliefs, so technically, they can't be an "NRM". SY has an entire hospital devoted to medicine, that's maybe alternative, or maybe it's traditional, or some mix of both. If the SY proponents want to make this article to be about medicine and health claims, it's ok with me as long as the applicable dissenting views are reasonably acknowleged. I think you are saying nearly the same thing.

Anyway, your proposed text seems to be converging toward a consensus. Milo 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SY says: "If religion means connection with Reality, the Self or the Divine, whatever your language, then yes. Sahaja Yoga is not an organized religion, but it unites the essence of all religions through direct perception of the subtle, divine reality." NRMs often redefine terms to mean something different but NRM fits. SY has a hospital which claims to use Sahaja Yoga for miraculous cures, so it would be a mixture of both. Yes, I think we are basically in agreement, if SY wants to stress the medical and health claims, it's fine provided dissenting. more common views are acknowledged for NPOV. --Dseer 04:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue as classifying SY as a NRM, since there is no other alternative name (is there?), I won't go into this discussion, since it isn't entirely relevant to the discussion at hand... I agree with Milo in regards to providing dissenting views, however where/how would we choose the source to compare the specific treatments/trials made by SY? Sfacets 10:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Liver Diet, I suggest we go back to the source. It makes direct reference to Ayurvedic and Chinese medical practices, so areas where it differs are noteworthy. Second, it does not say that:

• Alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess.

All it says is that these foods are "harmful to a suffering liver and to be avoided". It is our own extrapolation that they are heating or can be consumed in non-excessive quantities. It'd be helpful if we could find a second source for the Liver Diet. -Will Beback · † · 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit casual, but here's another reference: http://www.meditate4free.co.uk/diet.htm. -Will Beback · † · 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes reference to Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine, but doesn't mention any specific connection to these practices. The second reference you provided uses the first as a source. Sfacets 21:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Article

The current introduction, which is too promotional and unencyclopedic, reads:

Sahaja Yoga (Sahaja meaning born with and Yoga meaning union) is a form of meditation, created by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, in 1970. The term Sahaja Yoga is also used to refer to the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization which she founded.

The practice is internationally popular, having lead to the creation of meditation centers in almost 100 countries[1], and its own television show. It has also notably been taught to prisoners in Italy and the United States, such as at Rikers Island[2][3] The organisation has been criticised by some ex-members and writer Sudhir Kakar who describes the organization as a cult.[4][5]

Sahaja is a sanskrit term and does not exclusively mean "born with", it can also mean "natural", "easy", etc. What is accurate is saying that Sahaja here means born with, etc. Saying the pratice is internationally "popular" is promotional, and vague, not encyclopedic. Internationally "popular" among who? How many/what percentage of the population actually practice it? What is encyclopedic is that the practice has spread internationally and there are centers internationally. And, so Sahaja Yoga now has enough funding to buy their own TV show, as do some other NRMs, is that important enough for an introduction, why not put it in the organization section? And so Sahaja Yoga has a prison outreach mission, along with many other NRMs and mainstream religions, how is that important enough for the introduction.

Thus a better, NPOV introduction would be:

Sahaja Yoga (Sahaja meaning born with and Yoga meaning union) is a form of meditation, created by Nirmala Srivastava, more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, or as "Mother" by followers, who believe she is the incarnation of the Adi Shakti, the primordial divine power. The term Sahaja Yoga is also used to refer to the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization, a New Religious Movement which she founded in 1970 in Nargol, India. The practice and associated organization grew from India and spread internationally, and there are now meditation centers around the world. The essential methods for beginning practice of Sahaja Yoga are currently made available free of charge to those interested. Sahaja Yoga claims the practice of Sahaja Yoga results in rapid, even instant self realization and Kundalini awakening. [[10]]. The organisation has been criticised by some ex-members and critics of NRMs, and writer Sudhir Kakar, who describes the organization as a cult. [11] [4] [5]. --Dseer 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, the translation of Sahaj could also be expanded as you suggested, and perhaps mention of the number of centers can also be included, or perhaps moved elsewhere in the article. Sfacets 02:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! Looks like progress. If you can fill in general, high level details like number of centers and membership, that is useful level of detail for an introduction. The rest can go in the body if deemed necesary. At this point, I'm breaking my analysis of problems with the article into sections to make it easier to follow what is proposed. I think that by restructuring the language here, section by section, we can come to a resolution on how to communicate all essential ideas fairly and equitably. The Sahaja Yoga sites have lots of information, we need to be selective and determine the appropriate level of relevance for an encyclopedic article that will interest readers, since it will always link to the groups' website. --Dseer 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, that's much clearer. -Will Beback · † · 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to "What is a real YOGA" post

(2007-01-15T17:28:06) Bothi (What is a real YOGA[12])

(2007-0115T18:47:24) Sfacets (?What is a real YOGA - rvt libelous edit)

Sfacets, I can understand why you were offended, but I think you went too far in deleting Bothi's entire post. Other than paragraph 6, it contains opinions legitimate to express on a talk page for a Criticisms section debate. I suggest that you undelete those parts to avoid a charge of censorship.

(As you know, I've been the recent victim of what I claim is talk page censorship at LOGRTAC <--beginning with this irregularly deleted redlink, so I feel the need to support editors' expression rights, in hopes that other editors will support me.)

Slanders are less permanent and so less serious. Possibly slander = talk/talk page; libel = web/article publishing. It may not become a libel unless it's eventually published by search engines.

While you might be offended by paragraph 6, sentence 1, Bothi has offered a harsh but plausible claim. A way to handle this is to counter-offer less harsh but plausible alternatives. (For example, since everyone dies, some illnesses obviously can't be cured, even if one sincerely believes otherwise.)

Paragraph 6, sentence 3 is more complicated. It appears to be a protected public figure slander, but expressed in bad taste without credible truth evidence to back it up. People are allowed to say many bad things about public figures, as long as they really believe it. Furthermore, Bothi might be using the defamation word in a slang sense, and not clearly understand that word is defamatory in a formal sense.

Since the slander isn't about you or another editor, you are on thin ice to redact someone else's post about a public figure, which the guru definitely is. Better that you would first negotiate with Bothi, about either removing his/her own slander, or to provide credible evidence that the slander is true in a formal sense (like a list of publicly obvious symptoms), or even to state that it is Bothi's genuine but unsupported notion, which readers can easily discount as unlikely.

If you first offer to negotiate, you become a consensus builder, which gains community respect for your editorial positions in other matters. Also, Bothi may think better of you personally, even if you prevail by consensus redaction.

If Bothi is not willing to delete or explain paragraph 6, sentence 3, then I would reluctantly propose that it be consensus redacted as having the effect of trolling. Milo 07:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, Milomedes, you are correct that the material posted may not have been legally libellous, at least in the U.S. Some of it may have even been true but without sources who's to say? The larger issue is that this is an article talk page and we should stick to discussing the article. If Bathis had written something like, "This article is incomplete because you don't cover these topics, or present these viewpoints", then that would have been acceptable. But an attack on the subject without reference to this article is no more than a rant. There are many off-Wiki places where people can posts rants and we don't usually accomodate them here. -Will Beback · † · 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the libelous part (well yes...), more the fact that wikipedia is not a forum and the user wasn't proposing anything to help in the advancement of the article. Sfacets 08:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just ignored the rant and forum parts. Bothi did wander a lot, but since there was some on-topic, I was bothered by just 'disappearing' Bothi's entire post without a discussion as though it were spam or vandalism. I think most editors just overwrite the PA's or libels "[PERSONAL ATTACK/LIBEL/TROLLING DELETED]" and leave the rest of the post. We could have focused Bothi on the issues that s/he did address, instead of alienating him/her.

I noticed two Bothi topics that have been discussed here by me and others: ADI-SHAKTI incarnation of God, and the subject of healing. IIRC, the first issue is mentioned at RMHP, and it seems to be a major source of conflict between SY and similar spirtitual communities. I think it can be resolved in the article by a few referenced statements from the left and right, but we seem to be many kilobytes of debate from consensus.

• However, Will, that's incidental to my previous post. Like it or not, this isn't a normal article or talk page, and ongoing dispute resolution issues remain on-topic here. For good and plenty reasons, you are directly involved in formal dispute mediation with Sfacets and Sahajist, and I also have a casual side dialog there with Sfacets. I assume that we have a common goal of an orderly page process for quickly and diplomatically resolving disputes. At its best that involves learning the art of negotiation, instead of always relying on caveperson force-of-edit. But at a minimum, editors must understand what what the basic laws, rules, guides, and personal rights are for making force-edits.

Most WP editors seem not to understand the exceptions to the law of libel and slander. Some seem to think libel law is a kind of right for their friends, nationalism, or belief system to not be offended — and that notion is an off-topic time-waster.

So, I hope you will welcome my taking this opportunity for a libel and negotiation case-method in-service, to assist your mediation at the margins, and hopefully expedite orderly page process at Talk:Sahaja Yoga further down the kilobyte road. :) Milo 10:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What is inappropriate about the Bothi comments is not that they are libelous--they do not rise to the standard of libel for a public figure--but that they are an attack that is editorial in nature without references and thus not helpful here. That they are not legally libelous is evident because the critical sahajist site run by former members makes a more specific claim of mental illness and medication including actual hard evidence supporting the claim, and nothing has been done about it for that reason. Simply looking at the most recent pictures of the guru with sensitivity, rapid physical decline is evident. Those with experiences investigating multiple NRMs usually find that except for the highest level, members generally do not know such information anyway and certainly Bothi does not know it for a fact. The point is that since no reader can verify whether the mental illness charges are true or false, and it does not help collaboration, it is not worth debating it here. As for the other Bothi statements, sahaja yoga is not a mainstream or orthodox school, disagrees with a long body of tradition, and has redefined critical traditional terms, and all one can do is point that out in the article. The Gita states: "Real Wisdom dawns on an aspirant after millions of births. Then realizing everything as permeated by Me, he surrenders to Me. Extremely rare is such a lofty soul to be found". That doesn't stop NRMs from teaching something else which followers would rather hear.--Dseer 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what to say about that sad rumor, except I hope it's non-relevant here.

No need to discuss such rumors here on such limited evidence.

On a term-of-art issue of libel law (that I was previously hoping to avoid), a "legal libel" is any published defamation, false or true. However, one can successfully sue only in the case of a legal libel that is false. A false libel is also known an "actionable libel". Truth doesn't make it not a libel or not defamatory, but truth is an absolute defense to a libel action in a court of law. (Relevant to some religious professionals, you should probably look up "libel per se" and "libel per quod" on your own.)

Yes, you are more accurate. In common terms, it does not seen there is enough to win a suit of libel.

Thanks, I enjoyed the Gita quote. Milo 08:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bothi, your edits are not helpful. We all know that sahaja yoga defines the chakra functions uniquely. But you are not allowed to change what SY advocates simply because you do not agree. --Dseer 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CAN SAHAJA BE A YOGA

If Sahaja is a yoga then it has to have following points:

1- Lineage of GURUS...In Sahaja there is only one guru... 2- Satya is a must in any yoga...In Sahaja ASATYA is always leading... 3- Enlightenment in any yoga can be earned by yogis/yoginis own efforts...In Sahaja MATAJI gives the enlightenment as if it is an object... 4- Healing not necessarily can be obtained by any yoga...But in Sahaja Mataji says if one does his/her meditations then no sickness comes out...But MATAJI herself has been a sick person she has many illnes, and she can not heal herself! 5- In yoga the aim is to be together with everything...But Mataji says she is the ruh of ALLAH... and she gives as a referance holy KORAN sureh of el-kiyameh...In Islam there is no such belief as ruh of ALLAH...And el-kiyameh has no relation with what Mataji says...

There are many more ASATYA about Sahaja,,, so it is very hard for this belief to be a yoga...

1 February 2207 Bothi 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bothi, please realize that we aren't here to make judgments on individuals or movements. Our task, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So all of what you say may be true, but that's beside the point. We only include information from reliable sources. If some noteworthy commentator has made these points then we can include them, otherwise we can't. -Will Beback · † · 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bill Beback. You need reliable sources that address these points, or they can't be included in a critical section. Some of these points are not accepted by all contemporary yogas. --Dseer 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To Will Beback and to Sfacets

You are kindly talking about ON SOURCED OPINIONS and VANDALIZING particularly Sfacets,,,

How do you evaluate your page about SAHAJA YOGA and MATAJI?

1- Who are saying that these acts of MATAJI are very kind? And all of her acts are in accord with the general principles of YOGA,,,Who can confirm that the acts of MATAJI and SAHAJA YOGA are in harmony with the 8 stages of Sri PATANJALI...

2-Any act in order to be named as a YOGA requires to be in accord with the 8 STAGES of Sri Patanjali...

3-Is there any word in all my sayings that do not reflect the reality about SAHAJA ACTION?

4-Why your wikipedia will be a tool of any group or any body who are not defending TRUTH...

5- MATAJI has several illness this is known and confirmed by her husband,by her doctors and by some of her sahajist members...

6-If you really want any proof regarding the illness of MATAJI please check the following link: http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/Transition.htm

All I am saying that in this place of wikipedia YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to give people WRONG INFORMATION regarding any act under the name of YOGA...

If SAHAJA ACT were introduced under any other name, I would not care about it. Since YOGA is being used as a false name,,,,I have a right to say to S T O P it!

In other words, I am trying to help wikipedia to give correct information here...

YOUR FIRST TARGET SHOULD BE TO GIVE CORRECT INFORMATION NOT A FALSE ONE...

28/02/2007 The use of the word "Yoga" in 'Sahaja Yoga' is not realy an academic matter as, regardles of your understanding of the term "Yoga", 'Sahaja Yoga' is the name adopted by the incorporation. So technically, calling it any other name is inaccurate.

With respect,

2 February 2007 Bothi 17:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on Wikipedia is not a forum - all you are doing is disrupting this page. Sfacets 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors on this matter. Sahajhist 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, Please note that this page is for discussion, so thats what I am doing...Any encyclopedia should give true meanings...Not the false ones. I am trying to correct that SAHAJA ACT being a yoga ...And you have wanted sourced opinions and reliable references,so I am giving all those here...Why now are you trying to cover the realities regarding SAHAJA-ACT... I am giving all the reliable references that this act is not a real yoga...And its lady is not a real guru...Please be factual...Sahajists are obviously against my wordings,as my wordings are showing the TRUTH. They do not like SATYA at all. This is a known fact about SAHAJA ACT...

3 February 2007 Bothi 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this page is for discussion on how to improve the article, not to rant on how your version of the truth is invariably better to everyone elses. Either join the conversation like a civilised person, or go and preach your TRUTH somewhere else. Sfacets 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New Religious Movement

According to some authors (eg Coney, Judith 1998) 'New Religious Movement' has negative connotations, being easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" which according to Massimo Introvigne are non-neutral and "used as tools of hate and discrimination". I propose there fore that we amend this, either by replacing it with a less-loaded term (something akin to Perennism?), or by inserting a description in its stead such as "a system of meditation" or similar. Please discuss. Sfacets 10:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We have sources, including Coney, that call SY a "NRM". Therefore it's sourced material. Please don't remove it. If you have sources that also call it "a system of meditation" then we can add that term too. -Will Beback · † · 09:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Coney's definition of an NRM differs fro the norm, saying that using the term NRM is easily interchangeable with ‘cult’ and ‘sect’ which are non-neutral terms. Other studies by known authors such as Adam Possamai who's studies have shown that a large majority (over 70%) of so-called NRM's separate themselves from the concept of 'organised religion' or 'New Age'. I'm not going to push the issue here, although I will probably mention some of these studies at the cult, NRM or New Age articles. [ Sfacets 07:34, 20 Feb 2007 (UTC) [13] ]

Sfacets, why did you add scare quotes to "new religious movement"? -Will Beback · † · 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did so because of the reasons I gave above^. Sfacets 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont' see any reason to call the term into question. We might as well put "self-realization" into scare quotes as well, by the smae logic. -Will Beback · † · 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the term, as it is not only prejudicial (this isn't just my POV, see above), but was being used to describe 'Sahaja Yoga International' which is different to Sahaja Yoga meditation... Sfacets 11:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga is a new religious movement. It is new, it's religious, it's a movement. It's been there for a very long time, and it has a source, so I'm to restore it until we can come to a consensus on it. -Will Beback · † · 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have not read the book by Judith Coney, but seeing some disagreement here I looked the book up on Amazon.com, which includes images of some pages and the jacket. An image of the Front Flap on Amazon.com reads as follows: "Sahaja Yoga. Judith Coney. This book is the first full-length examination of Sahaja Yoga, a new religious movement led by an Indian woman, Sri Mataji Devi, which claims up to one hundred thousand members from around the world." At the bottom of the Front Flap is the notation "Curzon Studies in New Religious Movements". Publication data for the book as listed at Amazon.com appears to refer to the edition which is now mentioned under further reading on the article page. Sahaja Yoga (Hardcover) by Judith Coney (Author), 269 pages Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (1999) Language: English ISBN-10: 0700710612 ISBN-13: 978-0700710614 Buddhipriya 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction to the book is also provided in image form at Amazon.com. On page 1 it says the book "is about Sahaja Yoga, the new religious movement (NRM) ... ". Page 2 introduces the idea of variation among NRMs, saying "Indeed, a number of scholars have already observed that there are a variety of standpoints about NRMs which exhibit patterned variation (Beckford 1985b; Barker 1993b)." On page 4 she says "first generation exclusivist NRMs like Sahaja Yoga provide perfect conditions for the study of larger social processes because their boundaries, entry and exit points are unusually well-defined (Bainbridge 1985; Barker 1995, 167)." Based on these quotations it would appear that the issue of variations in types of NRMs are addressed within the book. Buddhipriya 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us to autonomously define terms here. 'new Religious movement' is a Pejorative term. Non neutral. Non-encyclopedic. It is a controversial term, this has been said by many notale researchers in the field. Sfacets 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please cite sources? Buddhipriya 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did, above... Sfacets 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me note that I know very little about Sahaja Yoga other than what I have read here. I also am not very knowledgable about the New Religious Movement terminology or any controversy that may surround it. I merely noted here that there seemed to be questions about the use of the term in connection with "Sahaja Yoga". There seem to be two different issues: 1. Has the term NRM been applied to Sahaja Yoga? The answer seems to be yes, since that is the title of a book listed on the article page about it, and the text of the book can be confirmed online at Amazon. 2. Is the term perjorative? Whether it is or is not, why would that be grounds not to say that the term has been applied to Sahaja Yoga? Is it factually wrong to have a sentence like "Judith Coney described Sahaja Yoga as a New Religious Movement in her book on that subject" or something along those lines? I am not understanding the unwillingness to include the fact in the article. Why is this so sensitive? Buddhipriya 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We could write something like: "SY has been described as an NRM by ____", however we cannot insert a non-neutral term into the article. This would only be acceptable if SY has been described a large amount of times as an NRM. Sfacets 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I am still trying to be sure I understand your referencing. The article on New religious movement says in its opening sentence that the term is controversial. To be controversial is not to be prohibited. Why would it be wrong to say the term has been applied here, since one of the books in the book list does so in the title? Buddhipriya 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it help reduce conflict if the reference to NRM were more clearly separated out from the sentence that now reads: "The term Sahaja Yoga is also used to refer to the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization, a 'new religious movement' which she founded in 1970 in Nargol, India."

If there is concern about the NRM phrase, could there be two sentences: 1. "The term Sahaja Yoga is also used to refer to the Sahaja Yoga International (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) organization, which she founded in 1970 in Nargol, India." 2. Sahaja Yoga has been described as a 'new religious movement' by Judith Coney in her book Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement. The second sentence could be moved to the section on criticism if you feel that the statement is critical or controversial. Buddhipriya 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on New religious movement says in its opening sentence that the term is controversial.

That article says that because Sfacets added it with noprior discussion or source a coupe of days ago.[14]. -Will Beback · † · 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, could Sfacets please provide the quote wherein Coney calls "NRM" a controversiala, non-neutral term? That would help. -Will Beback · † · 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(please see discussion on New Religious Movement). For the record, I never stated that Coney had said that the term was "controversial". Sfacets 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My error, the phrase you used was "negative connotations". -Will Beback · † · 05:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection. The term NRM was developed as a less controversial alternative to the word cult by those who are sometimes called apologists to describe organizations like SY. SY is commonly refered to as either a cult or NRM. Sfacets, you yourself said: "Yes, Sahaja Yoga is considered an NRM". Simply googling NRM demonstrates that SY is widely considered either an NRM or a cult. Of course, most NRMs or cults want to claim an ancient lineage, and some also prefer not to be labeled as a religious movement, but the fact remains that SY did not exist prior to 1970 and is a religious movement which believes itself to be the fulfillment of all religions. NRM also links to a discussion of what that means which is informative to the reader. --Dseer 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"According to some authors (eg Coney, Judith 1998) 'New Religious Movement' has negative connotations, being easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" " I'd have to see the original statement, but Coney is probably wrong and/or being misinterpreted, mentioning a decidedly minor view, or referring to an irreducible odium for which there is no language remedy.
• First, groups referred as NRMs or any other term are inherently disliked by the global public because of their competition with major religions, and this will never change. Therefore any term of description including scientific value-neutral terms, will always carry some degree of odius connotation that doesn't rise to the level of pejorative.
To quote CultFAQ.org (a Christian Apologetics website):

...if deservedly controversial groups and movements like Aum Shinrikyo, the Church of Scientology, and the Unification Church were identified as, say, 'pineapples,' the term 'pineapple' would take on a negative connotation the moment people realize that you are using the term as a euphemism for 'cult.' -- 'New Religious Movements' and other Euphemism

By analogy, to truthfully call someone a Jew can convey an odium, even though "Jew" is clearly not pejorative. The Jewish movie producer Mel Brooks once did an angry TV rant on this issue, and basically said 'I'm a Jew, so what, get over it.'
• Second, and most importantly, "New Religious Movement" is not "easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" ". That was the original intent, but according to the late Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, it didn't happen:

The use of the concept "new religious movements" in public discourse is problematic for the simple reason that it has not gained currency. Speaking bluntly from personal experience, when I use the concept "new religious movements," the large majority of people I encounter don't know what I'm talking about. I am invariably queried as to what I mean. And, at some point in the course of my explanation, the inquirer unfailing responds, "oh, you mean you study cults!" -- Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" at The Religious Movements Page."

Professor Hadden has a great deal more to say about the exacting scientific and communication uses for terms "cult", "sect", and "New Religious Movement (NRM)". Both Hadden and CultFAQ.org make a more general point about defending the use of defined language. Haddon in particular defends use of "cult" and "sect" in scientific publications, and objects to the proliferation of terms surrounding the introduction of NRM. The NRM term was intentionally designed to meet the objections to pejoritive populist use of "cult". Yet precisely because the public has not accepted "NRM" as a drop-in replacement for the populist usage of "cult", NRM remains suitable as a value-neutral term for use in Wikipedia articles. Milo 07:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your views on this - to tell the truth I don't especially mind if the term stays, since there are no other terms which are as widely-accepted. It is the law of the jungle, after all, that the stronger voice grabs the stage - the bias will perpetuate for a long time yet. Maybe eventually a more neutral term will be common usage, but for now we are stuck with it... Sfacets 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for considering the issue further. NRM does at least have common and academic recognition and does link to a discussion of the term which would inform the interested reader. Religion I suggest is similar to politics, it is inherently polarized, so no matter what term you use, it will become polarized. --Dseer 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section

I plan on expanding the section, adding chakra charts of corresponding locations in the body - I have created a preliminary chart here and would like to hear what people think... The chart would come with a short descriptive text. Sfacets 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

a chart showing chakra locations in the head would be good - that information is unique to Sahaja Yoga as taught by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Sahajhist 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources. Please don't add unsourcd material. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahajhist: Yes a good idea, I plan on adding it as well... [here] is a source. I'm sure there are others as well. Sfacets 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

also [15] [16] [17] Sahajhist 12:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga practices

In addition to the charts (almost done with the head one!) above, I would like to start expanding the 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section to include detailed information on the chakras, Nadhis, treatments, etc. as well as a descriptive section on meditation describing what 'thoughtless awareness' is, and how the chakras inter-relate.

Any suggestions/feedback on this proposal? I have put down a few ideas at user:Sfacets/Chakras2 - feel free to add to them! Sfacets 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't see any sources included in that proposed material. -Will Beback · † · 07:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

all of the proposed material can be sourced, and I'm happy to do so when it appears on the main page. Sahajhist 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to wait. Let's build an article from the sources up. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, these are only a few disorganized concepts I laid down - I'm going to continue working on user:Sfacets/Chakras2 then, and provide sources here before moving it into the article. My fear is that the amount of content will be quite a lot in comparison to the rest of the sections - perhaps we should think about migrating the content to a new article... Sfacets 10:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You moved it in without sources, that I can see. I'll remove it shortly if no sources are provided. There's no sources listed for the chakra chart either. This is a long standing complaint so I think it's reasonable to expect that sources be added to the specific assertions. -Will Beback · † · 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical websites subsection in EL section

• Mention of the existence of critical websites has been referenced in multiple reputable secondary sources. E.g. The Independent (2001), The Evening Standard (2001), and The Record (2005). These links deserve a small place in the EL section. Smee 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not debating that - please refer to prior discussions on why some of the links are unacceptable per Wikipedia policies. Sfacets 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are these prior discussions??? Smee 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at the first section... Sfacets 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources are appropriate. However we shouldn't link to copied versions of them. -Will Beback · † · 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

http://sahajacult.com/

I think that the removal of http://sahajacult.com/ was improper. What are the grounds? -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I already gave the grounds - but here we go again - the website fails WP:EL:

• Not "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)
• Link to blog / personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Before you ask what is not tasteful etc - please refer to our prior discussion on the subject. Sfacets 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A) We didn't agree that is distasteful. The text cited was very mild. B) What proof do we have that it's a personal webpage? -Will Beback · † · 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no such agreement, in fact, Sfacet's position was in the minority. It is necessary to balance the article which still reads like a recruitment vehicle rather than being encyclopedic. Sfacets supports an EL listed with the title "Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations" when the very title is suspect and libelous because it is only SY claiming these allegations are false, but objects to critical links by ex-members who are authoritative on the group. Research has not shown that responsible ex-followers are any less authoritative on their former organization than current members. --Dseer 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the choicer words used by the site to describe Nirmala Srivastava include "insane", "evil", "liar". Also please have a look at the descriptions used in the photo gallery of the website. Not very tasteful. It is a personal webpage - have a look at the front page under the last section, the webmaster signs his writing.

Dseer, in the case of "Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations" - how is it libelous? Please explain. There wouldn't be a problem if the ex-members were able to create a website that didn't contain non-tasteful and libelous content - the guys at sahaja-yoga.org managed, the person at sahajacult didn't. Sfacets 01:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Liar", etc., are legitimate viewpoints. It's only distasteful to those who admire the person. We wouldn't keep out links to websites about George Bush just because they say he's a liar. The fact that there is a single webmaster doesn't mean it's a one-person site. Most websites have a single webmaster. It's clearly not a blog and clearly contains many viewpoints. It seems like a worthwhile external link. -Will Beback · † · 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It contains the viewpoints of the one author. There is nothing that proves that there are multiple viewpoints - the website is a personal collection of information and opinions by the webaster. Have you read the titles used in the photo section? And you still contend that it isn't distasteful? Calling someone a liar is alright - downright mocking them is another. We wouldn't keep out links to websites critical of GWB, except if it were something like http://www.geocities.com/GWBblows/. The same applies here. Sfacets 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Distasteful to Sfacets only when the unflattering truth is reported about their guru. But, critics can be said by that group to be guilty of "false allegations" (i.e, liars), "immoral misconduct", "financial impropriety" (i.e., thieves), "used by fundamentalists", "keeping seekers from finding the truth", "evil spirited" (i.e., demon possessed), "the kind of people who tormented great souls, crucified Christ" (etc), "evil minded", "failed yogis who want to prevent others from achieving", etc., and that is perfectly fine. By now it should be apparent you can't reason with a true believer. Since the sahajists have set that vile, lowball standard in refering to critics, those far milder critical links are perfectly acceptable. I think it is time for arbitration. Sfacets is just trying to postpone the day an arbitration committee looks at this recruitment type of an article. Anyone who advocates that their guru emits "cosmic radiation" needs to go to arbitration and get a sanity check. --Dseer 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at all the phot caoptions and I don't see anything that is truly distateful. The worst I saw was probably one that says "Okay, I am crazy." Again, that's very mild and does not rise to the level of distastefullness that is meant by that guideline. Continued deletion of it for that reason appears to be POV pushing. -Will Beback · † · 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued re-insertion appears to be POV-pushing, I could answer. What is the "level of distastefulness" as meant by the guideline? Sfacets 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I beleive it is targeting sites like "goatse.com". I haven't seen anything on that site more odffensive than a typical editorial cartoon. Certainly GW Bush has been called worse things than "crazy" or "liar". -Will Beback · † · 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, goatse is vulgar, and certainly not tasteful, however there is nothing to sugest that that is the type of website that is defined. You will also note that there are no similar-type links (as compared to sahajcult) in the Bush article. I'm still awaiting your response on why you believe this website contains "many viewpoints" - and why, according to you, it is more than a personal website/blog containing the rants of it's webmaster? Sfacets 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The editors here don't think it's any more distasteful than many acceptable sites. As for being a one -person website, is that the standard you want to apply to all sources, pro or con? -Will Beback · † · 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion. You can request an RFC if you want. It isn't about being a one-person website, it's about being someone's personal website. There is a difference. Sfacets 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference between a one-person website and a personal website? The main distinction I see in WP:RS is regarding the use of "self-published" material for secondary sources. -Will Beback · † · 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, scanning over the material I don't thiink it is solely one person's views. It includes numeorus quotes from the leader, such as [18], [19]. It has a fully referenced gloassary, which is reason enough to link to it.[20] It has writings by a variety of people, such as in [21]. While I don't know howmany webmasters it has, it certianly includes many different people's viewpoints. -Will Beback · † · 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It contains a collection of messages taken from different newsgroups. The glossary is mostly comprised of short definitions which can be found elsewhere, this is in no way a unique resource - except for the commentary the author chooses to throw in every now and then. A lot, if not all, of the material, at least as far as selected other people's view points go seems to have been lifted from discussion groups. Sfacets 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it provides a collection of different viewpoints, which means it isn't just one guy's opinion, as you stated above. Where is there a better glossary? -Will Beback · † · 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Glossary pertains the the site in question. It is "one guy's" opinion, in that he /she maintains a selective listing. Sfacets 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The glossary is mostly sourced to a book written by a prominent SYer. I think you've run out of reasons to prohibit this link. -Will Beback · † · 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the selective listing is much more of a problem with the http://www.sahajvidya.org, if that is your concern. That site is entirely made up of quotes selectively taken out of their original context and placed into a new context, arranged and edited by an anonymous individual. -Will Beback · † · 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sahajvidya.org

I contend that this is an improper source because the host site is not accessible and cannot be verified. We have no way of evaluating its trustworthiness, of knowing who the author is, their qualifications, or any other means of deciding whether it qualifies as a reliable source. -Will Beback · † · 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The source site is accessible - and the source uses speeches by the founder of movement as references. Sfacets 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't accessible to me, therefore it isn't verifiable. -Will Beback · † · 04:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Until we can learn more about this website and its author or webmaster I think we should remove the references to it. -Will Beback · † · 14:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the webmaster with a request for the original sources used for the chart - awaiting a response. Sfacets 12:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We also need to evaluate the entire website. Until we can do so I'm going to remove the source and the material sourced from it. We can easily restore the material once it's verifiable. -Will Beback · † · 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I got an answer from the author, here is a copy of the list of all the references he used (as stated) to create the chart. Sfacets 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is he? How can we evaluate his website according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:V, etc. ? -Will Beback · † · 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, (refer to prior discussions about this website) the author doesn't contribute any of his/her own material - the words in this case - are from speeches given by the founder of SY. Sfacets 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Access to the site requires contact with SY, the information isn't sufficiently relevant to the purpose of this article, which is not to exhaustively cover all obscure aspects of SY dogma, and this is an encyclopedia, not a recruiting vehicle. That fact in itself is sufficient to make this link unacceptable. It must be removed until it is accessible to all without contacting anyone. Let Sfacets take it to arbitration.--Dseer 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep referring to this article as a recruiting vehicle - what on earth makes you think that? On the one hand there is Will Beback who was complaining aboout the lack of material on Sahaj beliefs/practices (but who is now doing all he can to bar any new material from being entered into the article) and then there is yourself who seem to be contributing little if anything to the actual article, but writting huge opinion pieces on discussion pages. Sfacets 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I welcome new material that is sourced to the same references that have been demanded for other material. Material without reliable sources does not belong. -Will Beback · † · 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I also am not opposed to suitable new material. But, why should any link require contacting someone from Sahaja Yoga to give them an access key to read it? That is simply a device to force them to make contact with the group, in other words, a recruiting vehicle. If the link becomes accessible to all without any need to contact anyone associated with Sahaja Yoga, and meets other standards for allowable links, I have no objection to it. But the article needs to be encyclopedic. The point is not to present the reader with pages and pages of minutia and diagrams on SY, that is what the links and references are for. --Dseer 07:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

this website is accessible to all via Google. Sahajhist 11:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, are you serious?! Sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory right there... And Sahajhist is right - the website is actually not protected at all, only access through the main index page. Sfacets 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am serious! I'm sure you can get access so what I'm saying seems bizzare, but all I get is the home page when I open the link, I can't enter the site by clicking on hyperlinks and I can't see what you are talking about. What the site literally says is:

"If you are having difficulty gaining access in the normal way...

enter the 'Key' below and press 'Enter' [leave the 2nd field blank]

Complete the web address here: www.sahajvidya.org/ & hit...

Note: The 'Key' may be obtained from any Sahaja Yogi or from your local Sahaja Yoga centre."

And if I do try and then hit "enter", the password protection is definitely in effect. It isn't suitable until any reader can enter the site without having to go through this. If you can provide directions that actually work for all readers, I want to take a liberal position on allowing the link. Again, all I want is the same standards to apply to pro and con material. --Dseer 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Until we can access the site and determine its nature there is no way of telling whether it meets our standards for reliable sources. If there is a back door which provides access please give the link. -Will Beback · † · 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

entering 'sahajvidya' in google search brings up [22] then click on 'home page'. This site is very reliable, being based, literally, on the teacher's exact words. Note also the one million plus counter. Sahajhist 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that I've taken a look, it appears to be a one-person site. The counter number is totally irrelevant. Are you guys saying that you believe everything on this site is reliable? I see a lot of files on medical topics. Do you guys believe that it would be appropriate to report what is contained in them, including the assertions that AIDS is caused by copper, or that diabetes is caused by too much thinking instead of too much sugar? If you guys really want to present this as a reliable source of info then I'd expect you to accept it all as reliable info. -Will Beback · † · 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sfacets and Sahajist for the improved access instructions! From what I know of SY, it seems to be a one person site by a dedicated SY devotee that accurately reflects actual SY doctrine just as the introduction states, and adds new information to the article in that regard. The instructions on getting the suggestive energy effect of energy above the head SYs call self realization which I am familiar with are accurate. I too see lots of psuedo-science/medical/dietary information, and dogma, but a NRMs beliefs are their beliefs, and I believe they should be reported accurately as such, with whatever caveats are needed for psuedoscience as I've mentioned before. Now that we can actually see the site, as long as SYs are comfortable with what is there being made available to the public, and can put the proper link via the google search in so that readers can access it, like I said, I don't have any issue with it as a link. I think readers would prefer that to overloading the article with too many diagrams. --Dseer 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, you misunderstand - the idea is to portray beliefs held by SY - and this website supports these beliefs. It is not up to you or I to make judgments on the validity of the information. Dseer, I'm glad you understand the issue here - however I don't think the link should replace the diagrams already found in the article - although it is true that the article is getting cramped - I suppose that's what happens when 2 or three articles are merged into one. Maybe as the information contained in the article augments the article should be split... Sfacets 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS warns about self-published material, which this website seems to contain. Let me ask my other question again - do you consider all of the material on the website to be a reliable indication of the leader's viewpoints? -Will Beback · † · 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Going by the site's stated policy, I would say yes. Sfacets 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So there would be no objection if we use the site to quote the leader's claims about medical conditions or spiritual and ethical matters, for example? -Will Beback · † · 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with using material from this site, as Will has hinted, is that the compiler takes what could politely be called a 'biblical' approach - a sentence from one talk, a paragraph from another - which results in Shri Mataji's comments being discussed out of the context of the original talk. I'm happy for the diagrams to be used, but thats about it. That's my POV. Sahajhist 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The diagram material is collected in the same way as the others. It's all or nothing so far as the site is concerned. -Will Beback · † · 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure this site is needed in regards to the chakra charts, as other sources exist... Sfacets 04:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sahajhist 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The compilation aspect makes it problematic as a source when other sources exist, but provided it can be accessed and accurately reflects SY beliefs, I still think it is ok as an unofficial external link. Compilation is inevitable when trying to address a wide variety of different topics drawn from a large number of talks related to SY beliefs and practices, but since it seems to cover a lot of ground not covered in the other external links, it does serve the reader who wants to get more information on SY beliefs and practices. --Dseer 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/

Why does http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ keep being changed to http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga? When I visit the site I'm not forwarded to another URL. -Will Beback · † · 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja-yoga.org is a domain name that resolves to the DNS servers of http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga. Sfacets 04:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that information? When I click on the link I get sent to www.sahaja-yoga.org, not to freewebtown. What's the necessity of changing the link? -Will Beback · † · 04:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

freewebtown is the host. Sahaja-yoga.org is the Domain name. They use URL redirection. By linking directly to the host (where the files are stored), the connection is faster because it doesn't have to go through the process of redirecting fro the parked domain to the web host. Sfacets 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see this when I visit the site. The speed difference isn't significant. You've redone this link many times. Please stop fooling with it. -Will Beback · † · 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless there is a speed difference, especially for users not living in the U.S. Linking directly to the host also means that there is a degree of stability - if the domain should expire, the information will still be located at the host address. Sfacets 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a minor difference. It's hard to beleive that you are making this change in good faith. -Will Beback · † · 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.newstarget.com/016026.html

We don't have any author listed for this article. Therefore we can't judge their credentials, or even know whether they've graduated from college. Per the earlier standards followed by Sfacets, this shouldn't be allowed. -Will Beback · † · 04:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is from the Ansa website - http://ansa.it/. Sfacets 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no more information available on that website either. -Will Beback · † · 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is published by a major News source. Sfacets 12:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it's a major news source and not a tabloid? We don't even know it was really published by them, or that it isn't a copyright violation. Until you can show that it isn't a copyright violation, it'll have to come down. -Will Beback · † · 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being petty. Sfacets 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you to be consistent. Yo've removed other sources because you've claimed they aren'tmajor news sources, because the work was anonymous or the credentials of the authors were unknown or insufficeint, or because you've asserted they have copyright violations. There's nothing here to indicate that the source is major, that it isn't a copyvio, or even who the reporter is. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ANSA is a cooperative of the main 36 Italian newspapers. [23]. It isn't copyvio because it isn't reproduced in the original format or in full. If you want to contest copyvio, then the Rickross mirrors of the independent and the Evening Standard are also in question. Sfacets 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't actually written by/for ANSA, but instead it's an anonymous rewording of an inaccesible article by an unknown author? And you're comfortable with that as a standard? -Will Beback · † · 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, proven double standards. Not only that, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article only says there are plans for SY to teach in the prisons. The article also says yoga made some prisoners worse in other countries. In short, it's just a puffery piece that adds no informational value to the article. The link does not meet Wikipedia standards and must be removed. Let Sfacets take it to arbitration. I'm going to be more assertive in getting rid of the puffery in this article. --Dseer 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

read Thirty-six of the largest Italian newspapers. Good point about the future thing though... Sfacets 14:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So who was the reporter who wrote it? What was the original text? -Will Beback · † · 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotation requested

I had requested a quotation for the "Doctor fined over yoga dispute" article, which was then reverted. The reason i was requesting it is because <blokquote>accusing him of befouling members of an Indian cult makes no conection between SY and the 'Indian cult' mentionned in the quote. Sfacets 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The quoted portion is obvious and speaks for itself. The "Indian cult" referred to is obviously "Sahaja Yoga", no other group is discussed in the article. Smee 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't refer directly to SY, for all we know it could refer to any group... Analysing it as meaning SY specifically is your own POV. Sfacets 05:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the quote?
• "Qld: Doctor fined over yoga dispute", AAP General News, Australia, November 12, 2001.

  Brisbane's District Court has been told a GP grabbed a man round the head and dragged him over a backyard fence -- accusing him of befouling members of an Indian cult. The court was told Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH was among a group delivering a letter to the man from the founder of the meditation religion, Sahaja Yoga. The 52-year-old doctor from the New South Wales central coast today pleaded guilty to entering a house at Mount Ommaney in Brisbane...

• How more obvious can it be??? Smee 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Of course I have read it, there is no connection made between SY and the undefined "Indian cult". It is not up to you or me to make that connection - if the article doesn't then we can't say there is. Sfacets 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is making the connection. The article clearly states that this doctor pled guilty, that he was upset at someone who had "befouled" members of an "Indian cult", and then in the next sentence states that he was acting in this manner delivering a note with a group of other individuals from Sahaja Yoga, to this same man that he assaulted. How much clearer could it be??? Smee 05:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Again, it is your POV making this connection, there is nothing in the text you provided that makes the connection. Making your own logical assumption is non-neutral. Does it say he was angry because this person "befouled" SY? No. Sfacets 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph because if I removed just the information about the cult it would no longer belong in the section... Sfacets 10:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Full quotation provided

AAP General News (Australia), November 12, 2001, Doctor fined over yoga dispute

Brisbane's District Court has been told a GP grabbed a man round the head and dragged him over a backyard fence -- accusing him of befouling members of an Indian cult. The court was told Dr BOHDAN MYRON SHEHOVYCH was among a group delivering a letter to the man from the founder of the meditation religion, Sahaja Yoga. The 52-year-old doctor from the New South Wales central coast today pleaded guilty to entering a house at Mount Ommaney in Brisbane' west and assaulting TERENCE RICHARD BLACKLEY on March 3 this year. The court heard the group was delivering a letter to BLACKLEY from spiritual leader SHRI MATAJI NIRMALA DEVI, alleging spiritual and criminal wrongdoings. Judge KERRY O'BRIEN today told the doctor that someone of his intelligence should have known better than to behave in that manner. He's fined Dr SHEHOVYCH $1,500 but did not record a conviction.

More detailed version, (NOTE: - different article) :

AAP General News (Australia), November 12, 2001, Doctor fined over yoga dispute, By Ainsley Pavey

A doctor grabbed a man around the head and dragged him over

a backyard fence, accusing him of "befouling" members of an Indian sect, a court was told today. Brisbane's District Court was told Dr Bohdan Myron Shehovych was among a group delivering a letter to the man from the founder of the meditation religion Sahaja Yoga. The 52-year-old general practitioner from the NSW central coast pleaded guilty today to entering a house at Mount Ommaney in Brisbane's west and assaulting Terence Richard Blackley on March 3. The court was told the group was delivering a letter to the 53-year-old Brisbane man from spiritual leader Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, alleging "spiritual and criminal wrongdoings". The 78-year-old religious leader claimed Mr Blackley and his wife Meera had been evil and had befouled other members. The religion was started in 1970 to bring "en masse" self-realisation. The letter, which was torn up during the confrontation, had ordered the Blackleys to return a young member, Sarah Yoblo, to her father. The court was told Dr Shehovych had gone to the house with the group, knocking on the door first and asking Mr Blackley to read the letter. When Mr Blackley refused to read it, the doctor scaled a fence, entered the house's

kitchen and grabbed Mr Blackley around the head as police were being called. The court heard Dr Shehovych slammed down the phone and put Mr Blackley in a head lock, then dragged him out of the kitchen and onto a verandah where he pushed him up against a rail. Mr Blackley was then dragged into the backyard and pushed over a fence, suffering cuts and scratches to his scalp, and also losing some hair in the attack. The court heard Mr Blackley was again told to read the letter but tore it up and told the visitors police were on the way before the group left in a car. Judge Kerry O'Brien fined Dr Shehovych $1,500 but did not record a conviction. Judge O'Brien criticised the doctor, saying he should have known better. "You are 52, you are a general practitioner, one would expect someone of your intelligence would have known better than to behave in this manner," Judge O'Brien said.

So you see, it is the exact same group, that this doctor belongs to - which the AAP is calling an "Indian cult" in one piece, and a "sect" in the other... Smee 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for providing the quotes... Sfacets 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. Smee 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Why 'Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations' is Libelous

Sfacets, why shouldn't we consider this link libelous? I have listed statements that impugn the character and motives of critics, even accusing them not only of immoral conduct and financial impropriety, but of being the same type of person who killed the prophets! None of the critical sites go as far as the Sahajists do, and the critics provide evidence to back their charges. If there is any link that should be deleted for outrageous libel, it is this link. Those true believes who want us to believe these charges but who then seriously advocate that scientists have confirmed that your guru emits "cosmic radiation" in some unprecedented way make the critics look far more sane, frankly. As for having achieved "self-realization", which is traditionally known by all non-dualist traditions to be a permanent, unchanging state of the disolution of ego and absolute Unitary Consciousness, Sahajists are simply using that traditional term in a totally different way to describe a much lower state of consciousness. --Dseer 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

--Dseer 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, I had to remove the text you copied from the website, as it was in violation of copyright. As to your POV opinions, I can only shake my head. Sfacets 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, Sfacets, as a Sahajist, you would refuse to discuss the libelous Sahaja Yoga link. You asked what was libelous, and then when I provided it in context for discussion, you deleted it, including my comments. However, you know nothing about copyright law here, fair use legally allows me to refer to the libelous comments produced by your guru's group with commentary. You had no right to remove all of what I wrote simply because you didn't like the import, even if I am like one of those "evil minded" critics like those who killed the prophets according to your true "faith". What we need here as I have said all along is arbitration to deal with the lack of good faith, wikilawyering and COI editing by a true believer trying to suppress criticism. Again, let me point out to all the most libelous and totally unsubstantiated statements put out by your guru's organization in that libelous link are:

"An organized attempt by a small group of dissatisfied ex-practitioners of Sahaja Yoga"

"Most of these people were asked to leave Sahaja Yoga for reasons of immoral misconduct or financial impropriety"

"These people are now used by some fundamentalist groups"

"They are trying to orchestrate an internet media campaign in an attempt to dissuade genuine seekers from finding the truth"

"Evil spirited people have in the past tormented the great incarnations, sufis, saints other great souls. They were the kind of people who fought Mohammed, killed Zarathustra, crucified Christ or poisoned Socrates....authors of such defamation and calumnies...these evil-minded people. The mediocrity expressed in making false allegations on the internet web-sites by a few disgruntled ex-yogis must be recognized for what it is: failed yogis who want to prevent others from achieving what was beyond their reach".

"We know those who are writing these false articles against Sahaja Yoga and their motives behind it".

Obviously, though the comments are reflective of the nature your group, this is the most vile libel, even accusing critics of being like those who killed the prophets and saints, and crucified Christ, far worse than the true but unflattering statements made by critics backed up with pictures and medical records. Therefore, your vile link, while it does show what you think about evil minded critics, sets a standard which allows those far milder critical links also.--Dseer 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nabisimple.png

Is it just me or is the image Image:Nabhisimple.png not updating in the article? It's not a cache issue... Sfacets 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be the server caches. I was just reading that some pages have been days old, for mysterious reasons. -Will Beback · † · 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation active?

Is this dispute still active? Do you need another mediator? --Ideogram 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that a similar dispute is in progress at International Sahaja Public School where a RfC has been posted on the talk page for that article. The dispute also spilled over to New religious movement. Having additional readers for all of these pages may help reduce conflict. Buddhipriya 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What I need to know for my purposes is whether the participants in the dispute here still desire mediation from MedCabal. To understand what MedCabal can and cannot do for you please read WP:MEDCAB. It is possible to have a MedCabal mediator help with the wider dispute but it would require that all those other participants be willing to cooperate with the mediation as well, since mediation is purely voluntary. --Ideogram 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the mediation was over, the mediator gave his advice and that was that. Sfacets 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have moved and relabelled three sites:
1.SahajVidya should be under Sahaja Yoga Meditation and is widely known under its own name.
2.The INFORM pamphlet is best listed under Critical Sites. The date of publication needs to be added.
3.The Shri Adi Shakti site and associated yahoogroup is now highly critical of the World Council and is best listed under Critical Sites. Sahajhist 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Widely known? Among encyclopedia readers?

2. We don't have dates of publication for other links - I'm not sure why we need that date.

3. This article isn't about the World Council. I removed "former yogis" from the description because I don't see where they describe themselves that way. -Will Beback · † · 06:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs

User Sethie is requested to explain his intentions re his text amendment of 22 May. If his intention is to differentiate Sahaja Yoga from Sahaj Marg, then please say so, and a mutually agreeable piece of text can be worked on. Sahajhist 09:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is really not Sethie's intention, at all. His intention is to provide an accurate summary of what Sahaja Yoga is, based on available sources. Sethie 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sahajhist 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

but the text still needs work. The cool breeze manifests from the awakened Kundalini in the Sahasrara Chakra, and yes that first occurs with Self-Realisation. These states beyond thought are diffcult to describe adequately in words. Sahajhist 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)